If the owners do not get contract limits on years (7 at most, but 5 ideally), then I hope they never sign anything and just lose multiple seasons. That is a non-negotiable and probably the one thing Bettman will never give up.

Big Easy Pens Fan wrote:Sounds like the Pens consecutive sellouts streak will be in jeopardy.

BEPF

Why do you say that? Anything specific or just what people have been saying?

I was blasted a lot before on this issue but I think their streak was on life support last season, way too many open seats the day before games, fake student ticket limits and for the first time since pre 2004 lockout the Pens offered us season holders seats to purchase extra playoff packages. Not that I want to go through that again.

But my point is I think if this lockout proves to be even a small detractor I don't see how the streak keeps going.

If it survives the next season that is played(whenever that is) i'll be surprised. The sellout streak has definitely been BS for a season and a half...only lasting because of season ticket sales. To be fair though, they never claimed it was gate entries.

If it wasn't for student rush tickets that streak would of ended a long time ago. Not that our attendance still wouldn't be really good for thoes games, but a sell out would not of happened.

Big Easy Pens Fan wrote:Sounds like the Pens consecutive sellouts streak will be in jeopardy.

BEPF

Why do you say that? Anything specific or just what people have been saying?

I was blasted a lot before on this issue but I think their streak was on life support last season, way too many open seats the day before games, fake student ticket limits and for the first time since pre 2004 lockout the Pens offered us season holders seats to purchase extra playoff packages. Not that I want to go through that again.

But my point is I think if this lockout proves to be even a small detractor I don't see how the streak keeps going.

If it survives the next season that is played(whenever that is) i'll be surprised. The sellout streak has definitely been BS for a season and a half...only lasting because of season ticket sales. To be fair though, they never claimed it was gate entries.

If it wasn't for student rush tickets that streak would of ended a long time ago. Not that our attendance still wouldn't be really good for thoes games, but a sell out would not of happened.

Your point?

That the student rush program is the streak's saving grace? That's what I got out of all this. Regardless if there's a sellout streak or not, our attendence figures would still be very strong and that's all what counts.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:If the owners do not get contract limits on years (7 at most, but 5 ideally), then I hope they never sign anything and just lose multiple seasons. That is a non-negotiable and probably the one thing Bettman will never give up.

I don't see how this makes that much difference as long as the 5% increase is in effect you couldn't create cap circumventing deals. the lenght of the deal would be up top the GM or team to deal with.

On ano0ther note: i really can't see how the league won't concider relocating these "money bleeding" teams Florida, Nashville, COlumbus and Phoenix. Ok its a great idea of keeping these teams alive unitl the new CBA is passed to see if they can make a turn around. But the simple act of moving a team to Qubeac, or adding a second team to Tornoto, Seattle or Milwalkee. These cities already have a hockey fan base. If the bottom teams were just losing money in the range of the mid teams you wouldn't really need a high impact revenue sharing plan. It would be much easier spreading thoes revenue sharing dollars.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:If the owners do not get contract limits on years (7 at most, but 5 ideally), then I hope they never sign anything and just lose multiple seasons. That is a non-negotiable and probably the one thing Bettman will never give up.

I don't see how this makes that much difference as long as the 5% increase is in effect you couldn't create cap circumventing deals. the lenght of the deal would be up top the GM or team to deal with.

On ano0ther note: i really can't see how the league won't concider relocating these "money bleeding" teams Florida, Nashville, COlumbus and Phoenix. Ok its a great idea of keeping these teams alive unitl the new CBA is passed to see if they can make a turn around. But the simple act of moving a team to Qubeac, or adding a second team to Tornoto, Seattle or Milwalkee. These cities already have a hockey fan base. If the bottom teams were just losing money in the range of the mid teams you wouldn't really need a high impact revenue sharing plan. It would be much easier spreading thoes revenue sharing dollars.

Florida and Phoenix I agree with you on but that's it. Columbus signed a new arena lease in the beginning of the year so there not going anywhere and Nashville actually draws well, it's just they have a problem getting support from the business community.

Yeah, it's very easy to talk about moving teams and the grass is always greener, but the practice is challenging. Easy to throw out places that might support NHL hockey, but you don't know until it happens. Teams like Hamilton in the AHL and the CFL, do very poorly...might not be a sports town at all. Or maybe they would ante up but for a real professional team, who knows. You can't figure it out until it's too late. Toronto-area junior teams are leaving the area for various reasons as well. Much to consider below the surface of geography. Quebec has had a team twice and lost it both times. Much to consider.

mikey287 wrote:Yeah, it's very easy to talk about moving teams and the grass is always greener, but the practice is challenging. Easy to throw out places that might support NHL hockey, but you don't know until it happens. Teams like Hamilton in the AHL and the CFL, do very poorly...might not be a sports town at all. Or maybe they would ante up but for a real professional team, who knows. You can't figure it out until it's too late. Toronto-area junior teams are leaving the area for various reasons as well. Much to consider below the surface of geography. Quebec has had a team twice and lost it both times. Much to consider.

It's hard to compare the old Quebec teams to what they'd do now based off the different in the value of the Canadian dollar. Throw in a metro population of 765,000 and the new $400-million arena getting under way, and it's well worth a look.

If I'm not mistaken, they're actually modelling their arena after the Consol Energy Center.

Not a bad read. The general overtone of the article seems pretty accurate: the NHL owners have no fear about shutting down a season because they know that when all is said and done we - the fans - will come running back once play resumes.

I thought this bit was absolutely fantastic, it really iterates the complexity in negotiating a CBA for athletes as opposed to an agreement with, say, a plant workers union.

It is always amusing to see the exasperation of a multimillionaire or billionaire owner when he discovers that what has worked in his business life does not transfer so well to the world of sport. What it usually comes down to is the annoying fact that, in sports, people are not simply the means of producing the product or service, people are the product. People have brains. People have feelings. People have opinions. People have a sense of justice.

This is something we need to remember, as well. All too often, fans and media members assign to ourselves a primary role in this sports thing. Obviously, fans are necessary for professional sports (or even non-professional sports such as high school and college sports) to justify the activity, and absent media coverage, the experience would clearly be lessened.

But let us never, ever forget that the absolutely irreplaceable element in the sports partnership is the athletes themselves, and in the case of professional sports, the athletes are the very best in the world at what they do. At any given point in time, those elite athletes are essential to the process. It all starts with them.

But this is the thing about owners, you see. They don’t give a damn.

By that, I mean they don’t really give a damn about the players and they certainly don’t give a damn about the fans. Are there occasional conspicuous exceptions? Well, yeah. But not many, not when it comes to any interference with the bottom line.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:If the owners do not get contract limits on years (7 at most, but 5 ideally), then I hope they never sign anything and just lose multiple seasons. That is a non-negotiable and probably the one thing Bettman will never give up.

I don't see how this makes that much difference as long as the 5% increase is in effect you couldn't create cap circumventing deals. the lenght of the deal would be up top the GM or team to deal with.

On ano0ther note: i really can't see how the league won't concider relocating these "money bleeding" teams Florida, Nashville, COlumbus and Phoenix. Ok its a great idea of keeping these teams alive unitl the new CBA is passed to see if they can make a turn around. But the simple act of moving a team to Qubeac, or adding a second team to Tornoto, Seattle or Milwalkee. These cities already have a hockey fan base. If the bottom teams were just losing money in the range of the mid teams you wouldn't really need a high impact revenue sharing plan. It would be much easier spreading thoes revenue sharing dollars.

Two issues that I see are how the heck do you draw attention to a team in a league that isn't even playing and try to sell seats, and I would think the union would like to have input as to any major impacting changes to their members that relocation would bring.

There was a guy interviewed on the NHL Network (Team USA President, maybe?) that was talking about how great it is for the sport to be able to tap into a larger pool of talent due to the expansion of teams into different geographic areas. The Southwest and Southeast were both mentioned.

I don't follow the NBA but when they show highlights on ESPN there sure do seem to be a lot of empty seats in certain cities. The NBA can't use the excuse that they are a niche sport like hockey as reason for those empty seats. Maybe the team is lousy; maybe the team charges too much for their product; maybe the local economy sucks like the rest of the country with entertainment spending low on the priority list... From the little that I hear about the NBA there doesn't seem to be the same talk about having to move teams just to compete financially.

By that, I mean they don’t really give a damn about the players and they certainly don’t give a damn about the fans. Are there occasional conspicuous exceptions? Well, yeah. But not many, not when it comes to any interference with the bottom line.

Does the person that wrote this know that many NHL owners to be able to draw such a conclusion that owners "don't give a damn."? That's a pretty broad based statement.

He does point out one thing, though. Owners know they must make a profit even at the sake of angering fans. Someone should remind him that it is still about business.

I agree with a lot ot points the writer makes, but he somehow took the opposite conclusion that I did. He should have praised the owners for sticking to their guns and trying to make the league better. Not cave in to the terrorist.

Sarcastic wrote:I agree with a lot ot points the writer makes, but he somehow took the opposite conclusion that I did. He should have praised the owners for sticking to their guns and trying to make the league better. Not cave in to the terrorist.

I'd argue that the current players are making the game better, not the owners. The players are the ones playing the games, scoring the goals, making the highlight reel, playing in the shootout...

To add, the players are the ones playing the game. Fans pay to see the players, not the owner(s)

Sarcastic wrote:I agree with a lot ot points the writer makes, but he somehow took the opposite conclusion that I did. He should have praised the owners for sticking to their guns and trying to make the league better. Not cave in to the terrorist.

Sarcastic wrote:I'd like to ask that writer, too, if he thinks that Fehr cares about the fans or the sport of hockey. He wasn't even a fan before he got hired. Oh, no. The writer really took a wrong turn somewhere.

He pointed out his general disdain for Fehr in the article.

That I can’t, and you can’t, is surely not the fault of the NHL Players Association, and I’m sure there was a time in the past when I would never have dreamed I’d ever be saying that about any group whose chief spokesman was Donald Fehr.

The thing about Fehr is that he doesn't care about the fans or the NHL because it's not his job. The only job he has is to get the players the best deal possible. Apparently, once a CBA is signed Fehr will be re-retiring and Steve Fehr will be taking over as head of the NHLPA... so it's not like he's got an image to uphold with his predecessor since it's his brother and right-hand man in this process.

I've responded to a few more brainiaics wanting the NHL to bring in replacement players (which will never happen).

I also just responded to someone who thinks that lowering contracts (in other words, lowering the players % of HRR) will result in lower ticket prices which is so very incorrect by the basic laws of economics. Ticket prices reflect demand - when there is high demand for tickets, they can charge more (see: Toronto, Montreal); when there is low demand for tickets, teams charge less (see: Phoenix, Florida). In order for ticket prices to lower on a league-wide scale, there would need to be a pretty large drop in demand for said tickets.

Bob Ryan is in fairy tale land with that article. Who cares about who and the fact that the product is a collection of human beings is no more relevant now than it was months ago. Typical sports writer fluff.

mikememfis wrote:The ill will the owners have created amongst the players by their stance in this lockout will never go away. Now try signing your key guys for less based on loyalty, when the owners try to pull these kinds of stunts. Nothing good comes of this

That's something I never thought of. With the animosity between the league and the players, you can pretty well say goodbye to anyone taking a "home town discount". And, if the players are as worried about what happens when the next CBA expires as a few sources have said, then you can expect them to try to milk every last cent possible out of the contracts before then.